Tunisia's Rached Ghannouchi's on Secularism

Mr. Rached Ghanouchi, President of the Nahdha Party in Tunisia, gave
an important and historic lecture at CSID-Tunisia last Friday, March
2nd, on "Secularism and Relation between Religion and the State from the
Perspective of the Nahdha Party", which was then followed by a frank and
open debate with leading scholars, activists, civil society leaders, and
politicians from accross the full spectrum, as well as representatives
of the Moroccan, Algerian, Egyptian, and American diplomatic missions.

The audience also included the Head of the Constituent Assembly Mustapha
Ben Ja'afar, President of ALESCO Muhammad Al-'Aziz Ibn 'Ashour, the Head
of the Higher Committee for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in
Tunisia Noureddine Hachad, as well as the leaders of various political
Parties such as Muhammad Goumani, Abd Al-Wahhab Al-Hani, Murad Ruissi,
Muhammad Busairi Bouabdelli, and Khaled Traouli.

We are pleased to send you the full transcript of the lecture, which we
hope you will find helpful (see below).

We welcome all of you in the Center for the Study of Islam andDemocracy, we thank you for coming to this symposium and for acceptingour invitation to participate in this meeting, through which we aspireto deepen the dialogue and strengthen the National Accord for thesuccess of the democratic transition in Tunisia. As you know, Tunisia isnow in front of a historical test which will determine not only the fateof our country but perhaps even that of the region and the Arab World asa whole in the coming period. All eyes are fixed on Tunisia, I just cameback from a tour that brought me to Jordan, Egypt and Algeria, andbelieve me when I say that all sights, laden with great expectations,are directed towards Tunisia. Since it was in Tunisia that the ArabSpring was kick-started to reclaim freedom and dignity, Tunisia has madegreat strides in this direction over its neighbors and other Arabcountries. Everyone expects a lot of us and wonders whether Tunisia willsucceed in building a genuine democracy that combines dignity, humanrights, justice, and Arabo-Islamic values.

The subject of the relationship between religion and state is one of themost difficult and important issues facing us now at a time when we'reestablishing a new constitution and governing system, which we hope willbe a democratic system that respects human rights. So, we are delightedto be hosting Professor Rached Ghannouchi, leader of al-Nahdha who infact is in no need of introduction. But just as a reminder, he is one ofthe Islamic Tendency Movement's founders, which became known asal-Nahdha Movement and later al-Nahdha Party after the revolution, andhas been the leader of the party ever since and one of the movement'sthinkers and theoreticians. He is also one of the leading thinkers ofthe Islamist movement both in the Arab and Islamic worlds as a whole. Hehas written extensively and in depth on such subjects as freedom,democracy, human rights and the relationship of these with Islam.

We are very pleased to host this symposium which we hope will be adialogue. We could have held this event in a venue of more breadth, butsaw fit to keep it small in order for it to be genuinely deep. From ourperspective, had we held this meeting in a bigger venue the quality ofthe debate would have undoubtedly been negatively affected. It isexactly for this purpose that we invited the finest thinkers of variouscurrents, trends, and parties to engage in a real and deep dialogue, tostudy the subject at hand, and come up with appropriate solutions to itonce we have listened to Prof Ghannouchi's presentation.

Ghannouchi, once again, has militated for democracy and freedom andtaken a fierce stand against tyranny which made him pay dearly for hisconvictions. He was sentenced to death, and thank God, here he is now inhis country respected and loved, while he who sentenced him is living inexile. These are some of Ghannouchi's works:

Our Way to Civilization, Us and the West, the Right to Differ and theDuty of Unity, the Palestinian Issue at a Cross Road, Woman Between theQur'an and the Reality of Muslims, From the Islamic Thought in Tunisia,Public Freedoms in the Islamic State, Predestination in Ibn Taymiyya'sThought, Contemplations on secularism and Civil Society, the Islamistmovements and points of change, From the Experience of the IslamistMovement in Tunisia, and A Rebellion on Silence.

I will suffice myself with this short introduction, and ask you to joinme in welcoming Prof Rached Ghannouchi. Welcome!

Transcript of Rached Ghannouchi's speech:

In the name of God, prayers and peace be upon His Messenger, hishousehold, companions, and supporters.

Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters may God's peace and blessingsbe upon you.

I thank the Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy for giving methe opportunity this evening to speak to this distinguished elite ofTunisian men and women and those coming from abroad. I am not here toteach you anything, since the subject we are here to discuss has no setinstructions to be delivered but rather only points of view to bedeepened and efforts to reach a common ground that would enable ourelite to reach a consensus or at least a quasi-consensus.

Our topic is quite problematic in the sense that it deals with theIslam's relationship to secularism. Is this relationship one of conflictand disaccord or one of harmony and overlap? Related to this questionare issues such as Islam's relationship to governance, the relationbetween Islam and Law, which are all contentious matters.

It seems that when we speak of secularism and Islam, as if we aretalking about evident and clear concepts. However, a non-negligibleamount of ambiguity and multiplicity of understandings surround theseconcepts, in that we are not talking about 'a' secularism but rather amultitude of secularisms as is the case with Islam, by virtue of what isproposed in the arena, we are faced with various understandings of whatit means.

Although secularism seems as if it was a philosophy and the fruit ofphilosophical reflections and meditations which came to fight idealistand religious outlooks, it is not so. Secularism appeared, evolved, andcrystallized in the West as procedural solutions, and not as aphilosophy or theory of existence, to problems that had been posed inthe European context. Most of these problems emerged following theProtestant split in the West, which tore apart the consensus that hadbeen dominant in the Catholic Church, and imposed the religious wars inthe 16th and 17th century. It was thus that Secularism and/orsecularization began.

This leads us to ask the following question: are we in need ofsecularism in its procedural aspect? Perhaps the most important idea inthe ensemble of these procedures is the idea of the state's neutralityi.e. towards religions and its abstention from interfering with people'sconsciences. Whereas, the state's scope or jurisdiction is limited tothe 'Public Domain', religion's scope extends to the 'Private'. In theUnited States religious interference in the public domain is evident,despite the differentiation that exists there remains a significantreligious influence. Their leaders' speeches are laden with religiouscontent and references, and religion is debated in all electoralcampaigns where it manifests itself in issues such as prayer in schoolsand abortion. This in reality is due to the fact that America wasfounded by evangelical pilgrims fleeing with their religion from theCatholic Church's persecution in Europe. It is for this reason that theU.S. is looked at as the Promised Land, the land of dreams mentioned inthe Torah and Gospels.

As the Franco-American thinker Tocqueville once remarked that the Churchis the most powerful party in the United States. This is by virtue ofthe huge influence that it enjoys, though this is not the case inEurope. Whereas the number of those who can lead prayer in the USexceeds 50%, in Europe it does not reach 5%.

In the European context, also, there are differences in the state'srelationship with religion between the French heritage and Anglo-Saxonone, whereby in the UK the Queen combines the temporal and the religiouspowers. The complete separation is the one that is associated with theFrench experience, which resulted from the clashes that took place inFrench history between the revolutionaries' state and the CatholicChurch. Even in Europe, therefore, we are not dealing with oneexperience in secularism, perhaps for our purposes, since our elite isinfluenced by the particular French perspective (particular even forEuropeans) where religion is totally excluded from the public sphere andthe state considers itself as the sole guardian of national identity.This exclusion of the religious and its symbols from the public domainis what lead France to be the only country that refused the covering ofheads for Muslim women, while we don't see such a crisis in any otherEuropean country over the issue of headscarves. This is exclusively dueto the particular nature of the relationship between state and religionin France which was the result of a particular historical experience.

We in turn are not faced with one understanding; perhaps the mostimportant procedure invented by the secular worldview on this level isthe state's neutrality. In other words, the state is the guarantor ofall freedoms be them religious, political or otherwise. And the stateshould not interfere in favor of this or that party. We pose thefollowing question now: Is Islam in need of such a procedure? i.e. thestate's neutrality towards the various religions.

Islam, since its inception, has always combined religion with politics,religion and state. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was the founder ofthe religion as well as the state. The first pledge of allegiance madeby the group of Madina who came to Mecca was a religious pledge tobelieve in Allah and his Messenger. But the second pledge was to protectthe Muslims, even by sword, should al-Madina be attacked. Al-Madina, andthis expression is of the utmost importance, used to be called Yathribbefore becoming Al-Madina (The City) which implies that Islam is notmerely a religion but also carries a civilizational meaning. It is atransferring of people from Bedouin life to urban/civilizational life.This is why 'Bedouinization' was considered a great sin onceurbanization had been achieved. No wonder then that wherever Islam wentit established cities and our country hosts the oldest city built byArabs in North Africa. Therefore, The City founded by the Prophet (pbuh)is a clear indication that Islam is a religion of civilization, wherebyit shifted those warring tribes from a Bedouin level to a civilized oneand united them around a state.

The Prophet (pbuh) was a an imam in the religious sense as he leadprayers in mosques, and at the same time a political imam thatarbitrated people's disputes, lead armies, and signed various accordsand treaties. Of relevance to us is the fact that upon his arrival toMedina he established a mosque and put in place a constitution that wascalled Al-Sahifah. You have precedents here Mustapha! [In reference toMr Mustapha Ben Ja'afar, President of the Constituent Assembly, who waspresent in the audience]. This Sahifah, which is one of the oldestconstitutions in the world, contained a bundle of covenants regulatingthe relations between Meccan immigrants and their hosts (these wereconsidered as one nation) and the Jewish tribes of Madina (alsoconsidered a nation). Al-Sahifa considered these two religious nationsas comprising one political nation and entity that is distinct fromothers. The most important concept offered by such scholars as MuhammadSalim Al 'Awwa and Muhammad 'Umar is the distinction between thereligious and the political as corresponding to the separation betweenstate and religion.

The distinction between that which is political and that which isreligious is clear in the Sahifah in that Muslims are a religious nation(ummah) and the Jews another, but the combination of the two plus otherpolytheists made up a nation in the political sense. This distinctioncan be witnessed in the Prophet's dealings even if the boundaries werenot always clear. Whereas the religious is the sphere of observance andobligation, the political is the sphere of reason and Ijtihad. At timeswhen the ambiguity confused the companions, they would ask the Prophet(pbuh) whether this is divine revelation (wahy) or a mere opinion. Inthe case of the former they would obey, and when it is the latter theymay differ and offer alternatives. On more than one occasion did thecompanions differ with the Prophet (pbuh) in his capacity as the head ofstate, and Sheikh Tahar Ben Ashour has dealt in detail with the topic ofwhat he called 'Prophetic Statuses'.

One day the Prophet (pbuh) passed by a group in Medina cross-pollinatingpalm trees and said: 'I do not see the benefit of doing so.' The Medinanpeople thought that that was divine revelation and stopped treatingtheir trees which made their harvest of that year of a lesser quality.They asked him why he ordered them to do so, and he replied: you arebest placed to know what is beneficial for you in your worldly affaires.Therefore, it is not the duty of religion to teach us agricultural,industrial or even governing techniques, because reason is qualified toreach these truths through the accumulation of experiences. The role ofreligion, however, is to answer the big question for us, those relatingto our existence, origins, destiny, and the purpose for which we werecreated, and to provide us with a system of values and principles thatwould guide our thinking, behaviour, and the regulations of the state towhich we aspire.

So, Islam since its inception and throughout its history has not knownthis separation between state and religion in the sense of excludingreligion from public life. And Muslims, to this day, have beeninfluenced by Islam and inspired by its teachings and guidance in theircivic life, with the distinction remaining clear. This distinctionbetween the religious and the political is also clear in the thought ofIslamic scholars/jurists. They have distinguished between the system oftransactions/dealings (Mu'amalat) and that of worship ('Ibadat). Whereasthe latter is the domain of constancy and observance i.e. reason cannotreach the truth, the former is the domain of searching for the generalinterest, for Islam came to realize people's interests as confirmed bysuch great jurists as Al-Shatibi and Ibn 'Ashour. These scholars haveagreed that the highest objective of all divine messages is to establishjustice and realize people's interests, and this is done through the useof reason in light of the guidelines, objectives, values, and principlesprovided by religion. Thus, there is a domain of transactions/dealingswhich is constantly evolving and represents the sphere of variables, andthere is the domain of creed, values, and virtues which represents thesphere of constants.

Throughout Islamic history, the state has always been influenced byIslam in one way or another in its practices, and its laws werelegislated for in light of the Islamic values as understood at thatparticular time and place. Despite this, states remained Islamic not inthe sense that their laws and procedures were divinely revealed, butthat they were human endeavours open to challenge and criticism. Stateshave also practiced a degree of neutrality, and when they tried tointerfere and impose one understanding on Muslims, as happened in theAbbasids state, it sparked revolution. It is mentioned that al-Mansourhad become concerned with the multitude of religious views andinterpretations emanating from the same religion and feared theirdivisive effect on the state. So he sent for Imam Malik and asked him toamalgamate all these in one to unify people's outlooks. Imam Malikproduced his famous book al-Muwatta', with which al-Mansour was greatlypleased and wanted it to become a law that binds all Muslims. Thishorrified Imam Malik and asked for it not to be made so, because theProphet's companions have travelled to different lands and took withthem much knowledge, so allow people to choose what they see fit. Thisis why we see that one school of thought is dominant in the Maghreb,while another is so in the Levant, and yet another in Egypt...etc

It is due to the absence of a church in Islam that what remains is thefreedom of thought and interpretation. This will naturally lead to adiversity in interpretation, and there is no harm in that except when weneed to legislate, at which time we are in need of a mechanism, and thebest mechanism that mankind has come up with is the electoral anddemocratic one which produces representatives of the nation and makesthese interpretations a collective as opposed to an individual effort.Again, in the absence of a church representing the sacred on earth and aspokesperson of the Qur'an, the nation is the only manifestation ofdivine will through its interactions and not any particular scholar,party, or state.

When al-Ma'moun (Abbassid Caliph) wanted to impose one interpretation ofthe Quran and one particular understanding of Islamic creed (that of theMu'tazili school), Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal revolted and refused thestate's attempt to dominate religion. This lead to him being persecutedand tortured, but in the end he managed to turn public opinion againstthe state and force al-Ma'moun to cede.

While the problematique in the west revolved around ways of liberatingthe state from religion and lead to destructive wars, in our context theproblem is one of liberating religion from the state and preventing itfrom dominating religion, and keeping the latter in the societal realm,open to all Muslims to read the Qur'an and understand it in the mannerthat they deem appropriate, and that there is no harm in the pluralitythat is combined with tolerance. But should Muslims be in need of laws,the democratic mechanism is the best embodiment of the Shura(consultation) value in Islam.

It is of the utmost importance that our heritage is devoid of a church.Maybe only our Shi'ah brothers hold the belief in a religiousinstitution, but in the Sunni world there is no such a thing save for acouncil of scholars which are usually in disagreement and hold differentviews. For this reason, we are in need of scholars and intellectuals todebate and study our issues in a climate of freedom and accept that thelegislative institution is the ultimate authority by virtue of beingelected.

There is a debate that is currently ongoing in our country betweensecular currents which may be described as extremist and Islamist oneswhich may be described in like manner. One would like to impose theirunderstanding of Islam from above using state tools and apparatuses andthe other aspires to strip the state, educational curricula, andnational culture of all Islamic influences. At a time when the wholeworld, including the Islamic world, is witnessing a religious awakening,and having seen the role played by the Catholic Church in thedevelopment of Eastern Europe, starting with the efforts of Pope JohnPaul II, and also the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the successof Putin's presidential campaign. At such a junction in time, it isunreasonable to object to religious influence on the state's culturaland educational policies. In fact, we do not need do impose Islambecause it is the people's religion and not the elite's, and Islam hasnot endured for so long because of states' influence but rather due tothe large acceptance it enjoys among its adherents, in fact the statehas often been a burden on religion.

As I said, many of those who belong to the Islamist current and othersfear the religion's emancipation from the state to be left as a societalmatter. Why does the state train Imams? Why does it control mosques?

The issue of the state's neutrality involves a great deal of risk andadventure. If what is meant by the separation between religion and stateis that the state is a human product and religion a divine revelation asthe distinction was made clear in the context of the early Muslimsbetween the realm of revelation (wahy) and what was the realm of thepolitical, then it is ok. But if what is mean is the separation in theFrench sense or in accordance with the Marxist experience then we mayengage in a dangerous adventure that may harm both religion and state.The total stripping of the state from religion would turn the state intoa mafia, and the world economic system into an exercise in plundering,and politics into deception and hypocrisy. And this is exactly whathappened in the Western experience, despite there being some positiveaspects. International politics became the preserve of a few financialbrokers owning the biggest share of capital and by extension the media,through which they ultimately control politicians.

In this context, people are deeply in need of religion and its spiritualand moral guidance which would enable them to distinguish between rightand wrong (halal and haram). And in the absence of a Church thatmonopolises the definition of what is halal and haram, this task is leftto be debated by the elite of thinkers, the people and the media.

Should religion be entirely emancipated from the state and politics,this would also carry some risks whereby things would get out of controland social harmony would be endangered. The way to do it, therefore, isto find a balance that would guarantee people's freedom and rights,because religion is here to do exactly that. To achieve this balance, weneed to go back to the issue of distinguishing between religion andpolitics and adjust the parameters of what is constant in religion andthat which is variable. We need our legislators to be well acquainted,educated and versed in religious values, so that when they arelegislating they do not require the tutelage of religious scholars andauthorities, and the same goes for politicians. There is no value to anyreligious observance that is motivated through coercion. It is of no useto turn those who are disobedient to God into hypocrites through thestate's coercive tools. People are created free and while it is possibleto have control over their external aspects, it is impossible to do soover their inner selves and convictions.

This is exactly why we saw two models in dealing with issue of theheadscarf/veil, the first is a veil that is dictated and imposed by thestate and the second is a veil forbidden by it. Once I was in a Muslimcountry's (in reference to Saudi Arabia?) airport where all women werecovered, but as soon as the plane took off the veils flew away with it.This is a clear failure of that country's educational system, which wasunable to guarantee people's religiosity except through coercive tools.In Ben Ali's Tunisia, women were forbidden from wearing the veil andexpress themselves in whatever appearance they saw fit, also through thestate's coercive means. This was also a failure.

The primary orbit for religion is not the state's apparatuses, butrather personal/individual convictions. The state's duty, however, is toprovide services to people before anything else, to create jobopportunities, and to provide good health and education not to controlpeople's hearts and minds. For this reason, I have opposed the coercionof people in all its forms and manifestation and have dealt with suchcontroversial topics such as al-Riddah (apostasy) and have defended thefreedom of people to either adhere to or defect from a religious creed,based on the Qur'anic verse that says: 'there is no compulsion inreligion'.

There is no meaning in forcing people to become Muslims, the Muslimnation has in no need for hypocrites who manifest belief and concealdisbelief. Freedom is the primary value through which a person adheresto Islam, so he who announces his shahadatayn ('I declare that there isno God but Allah, and Muhammad is his final Messenger') does so on thebasis of free choice underpinned by awareness and conviction. In thismanner, the state is Islamic insofar that it assures its actions are inaccordance with Islam's values without being subjected to the tutelageof any religious institution for there is no such a thing in Islam.Rather there is a people and a nation who are the decision makersthrough their institutions.

When the Meccan people objected to Muhammad's religion, he asked themnot to interfere with his preaching activities and to allow him thefreedom to communicate his message to the people. Had the Meccansaccorded the Prophet (pbuh) the freedom of expression, he would not haveimmigrated and left his homeland. But because his message was sopowerful, they could not offer an alternative to counteract it. This iswhy Muslims consider Islam's proof to be so powerful that there is noneed to coerce people, and when the voice of Islam proclaims 'Produceyour proof if ye are truthful' this challenge is being proposed at theheart of the political and intellectual conflict.

Thus, the greater part of the debate taking place nowadays in ourcountry is a misunderstanding of such concept as secularism and Islam.We demonstrated that secularism is not an atheist philosophy but merelya set of procedural arrangements designed to safeguard the freedom ofbelief and thought as Abd al-Wahhab al-Masiri distinguished, in hiswritings, between partial and total secularisms. An example of thelatter would be the Jacobin model in French history. In their war onpriesthood, the Jacobins' raised the following slogan: "strangle thelast king with the entrails of the last priest." This is a Frenchspecificity and not the absolute definition of secularism. There is alsoan ambiguity regarding Islam, for there are those who believe that Islamcan only be victorious by confiscating people's freedom and imposingprayers, fasting, and the veil through force. This would be far frombeing a success, for Allah Almighty had considered hypocrisy to be thegreatest crime, and the hellfire to be the eternal abode of Hypocrites.

The fact that our revolution has succeeded in toppling a dictator, weought to accept the principle of citizenship, and that this country doesnot belong to one party or another but rather to all of its citizensregardless of their religion, sex, or any other consideration. Islam hasbestowed on them the right to be citizens enjoying equal rights, and tobelieve in whatever they desire within the framework of mutual respect,and observance of the law which is legislated for by theirrepresentatives in parliament.

This is my understanding of things, and my view with regards to Islam'srelation to secularism. I hope that I have touched on the main issues,and I thank you profusely for your attention.